Power planning data loss - why not fixed?

[Rob87]

Hi there,

 

I already addressed this several times in the past to our local German distributor, but I think they don't understand my problem at all...

I apologize in advance for my harsh words. 

 

Vectorworks made with 2022 release improvements to the power planning, so for me this is signal that this will be also updated in the future.

But, in 2024 still the same issues like with initial release. What am I talking about?

 

Biggest problem for us with the power planning objects:

 

You are not able to copy your work from one file into another.

For example: You have a rig with 100 instruments, distress, power source, cable patch. Everything patched and numbered. Copy everything into blank file - all patch is gone!

How can you work with this?

 

You may laugh, but yes, this is not possible without loss of all data and all connections. And yes, it is also absolutely necessary to be able to do that.

Why?

1) Because VW is still not at a point where crashes don't happen. And I think will never be. There is software out there that might run 100% safe, but as VW is no human-life-critical software this will never be the goal number one. BUT, we have the auto-save system. Too, bad - this will not help you with power planing objects.

2) What about repeating projects, different project versions or exports for other companies? If I will ask you, if you had to copy, of whatever reason, within the last days sth from one plan into another, you will probably answer "yes, of course". So, why didn't you had this in mind while programming and testing this feature?

3) Repatching 1500 instruments, distros etc. truly is not an option and has nothing to do with "supercharching workflow"!

 

I know your answer - because every object may only exist one time in a system. Distro "A" should not be "A" when duplicated, because then all patch will also be duplicated. And this should not be allowed. Otherwise you would need some kind of error checking (like in Lightwright).

For me, this is too short-sighted. 

 

I can't understand these facts:

Lighting Devices - all data stays when copied

Hoists - data not copied if hoist is duplicated (data cannot exist two times), but if hoist is copied into new plan where the same data dosen't exist - the data will be copied

(Power Planning - all data lost when copied or duplicated)

 

Hoists work the way I want power planning objects to do, you made yourself an example that it is possible.

I am sure, hoist and power planning tools hadn't been programmed from the same source 🙂

 

So, if you really want us users to use this power planning, your first and number one goal should be to address this problem.

Everything else - like patch is not correctly displayed in the OIP - should be secondary.

 

Until this is not fixed, why is there a need for other improvements?

I always get told to put it on the wishlist - then everybody must vote. I think 99% of the users don't even know this wishlist exists and/or they don't have the time to look at it every day.

 

I apologize for my harsh words, but I am really dissatisfied with the past support. We spent a lot! of money every year for this software.

 

Thank you

[Scott C. Parker]

Hi Rob,
First, I agree with everything you've said. As a career entertainment person, I find many things in the current (new) cable planning workflow fall short for entertainment electricians working on intricate projects. The team in Germany does actually understand. We regularly meet with distributors; cable tools have been a hot topic. 

 

To recap your post:

The primary issue with the power planning software is that it does not allow users to copy work, including all the connections and data, from one file to another without losing the patching information. This is a significant problem because:

1. The software is prone to crashes, and while there is an auto-save feature, it doesn't help with preserving power planning data.
2. There are practical needs for duplicating projects, managing different versions, or sharing with other companies, which necessitates the ability to copy content without data loss.
3. Manually repatching many instruments and power sources is not feasible and undermines workflow efficiency.

#1: I've tested, and my backup copies retain all the connections to the point of a crash. I set my backups to save every ten operations and I save two copies of the file. If your backups are not working this way, we'd want to see both the actual file and the backup version made via the VW preferences backup setting.

 

#2: Like you, I've tried to reuse connected systems from one file to the next. In my work, I save entire systems or past show files as favorites to grab what I need. This doesn't work like we want, as you've noted.

I have a workaround that I've tested and that works. Instead of favorites for the patched systems, use template files. I've taken a few files of my past shows that tend to have systems I use repeatedly and saved them as template files. For each new project, I start the file with the appropriate template with a system closest to the new show's needs. Using the template retains all the connected systems. This doesn't help when combining gear from two files, but it's a start.

 

#3: Totally agree. I'm working on several improvement tasks for the development pipeline. In my opinion, the cable tools need more than simple fixes to this and that; it'll take longer than either of us would like.

 

Keep the comments coming. 

Thanks, Scott